About your Search

20130225
20130225
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
as the internet. in less than a decade, the pentagon's warning that it might be possible for a computer hacker to disable critical infrastructure in a major city and disrupt essential services has actually happened. other online attacks have seen millions of dollars stolen from banks and defense systems infiltrated. it's why, as we first reported in november of 2009, some people are already saying that the next big war is less likely to begin with a bang than a blackout. >> can you imagine your life without electric power? >> until february 2009, retired admiral mike mcconnell was the nation's top spy. as chief of national intelligence, he oversaw the central intelligence agency, the defense intelligence agency and the national security agency. few people know as much about cyber warfare, and our dependency on the power grid, and the computer networks that deliver our oil and gas, pump and purify our water, keep track of our money, and operate our transportation systems. >> if i were an attacker and i wanted to do strategic damage to the united states, i would either take the cold of winter or
drones that killed 1,000 people because pentagon officials say these people a terrorist? yes, says the american government and former u.n. ambassador john bolton says it is morally right to kill these people with drones and we are safer because of it. it does not seem morally right. take the word of some government officials that this guy is a terrorist and send a machine to kill him and to kill civilians along with him. >> well, the whole point of the war on terror from the perspective of the terrorist is to abuse the rules we have tried to create over hundreds of years to separate the combatants from innocent civilians. so the war on terror is different from traditional state to state war. the commander-in-chief authority vested by the constitution in the president gives in the direction over the were capabilities of the united states. his efforts both in the bush and obama administration to go after the terrorist, i think is entirely justified both by the constitution and by our inherent right of self-defense. john: american kill anybody anywhere? >> of course not. listen to wha
of a bill that republicans try to move forward to fbi the agencies, including the pentagon the ability to privatize. in one instance to say cut the waste, fraud and abuse they could find and not hurt the personnel. is that possible? >> it doesn't look like it. both sides are dug in. any for capital hill is for show. that is an issue that is punted to the next crisis deadline. >> which is the c.r., the continuing resolution. >> exactly. when funding if government rups out. hard and fast deadline. that is different from what we talk about now. people will notice government shutdown. they may not immediately notice the impact of the sequester. what is fascinating about the debate is the reason both sides are amped up. nobody knows what is going to happen. nobody knows if there are fewer teachers in school or fewer tsa agents and how it affects waiting in line at the airport. >> bret: it's your sense that democrats reach the point they are now pulling back the fight to go to the c.r.? to march 27 and continuing resolution? >> i think both sides are. >> bret: you agree? >> i think they made
, when it comes to cuts, maybe it's not as bad as the pentagon and others are warning. because he says republicans should argue that overall defense spending is still on the rise. now, cornyn admits that this is even a change for him. help said he would listen to leon panetta and others say these across the board spending cuts would be devastating. but he says he looked into it and he decided the best message for himself and other republicans, and of course this is the number two senate republican, is to say, you know what, maybe it's not going to be that bad. but as you well know, wolf, arguing that any cuts in military spending is an anthem ma to most republicans so i would imagine he's going to get some backlash on that messaging when he talks to republicans about it tomorrow. >> when it comes to gop legislation to prevent the negative impact from the sequester, what are you hearing, what's going on? >> reporter: what's going on right now is there is sort of the leading idea among senate republicans for a proposal that they will probably vote on this week. is to give the president f
spending as well as in the pentagon and there are a lots of people on both sides of the aisle for different reasons who believe, you know what, that's not such a terrible thing. so the default setting, despite what we heard about the tsa lines and all the rest, may be pretty palletable to some. and it shows you how far the dysfunction in washington has come since they came up with this plan a couple of years ago. >> now, on the dysfunction angle, look, the last time we talked about something sort of similar was fiscal cliff in december, the last congress. now we have new members of congress. my question now is how is the republican party different? >> well, this is the most interesting part of this. i think the white house made a calculation when this whole idea was hatched that the republican party would never go for draconian cuts on military spending. and what occurred in the republican party is that you have a group of younger members who believe in budget cutting above all else, and are willing to take the hits in the pentagon so long as you get hits in domestic spending and so long as
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)